Transcription

1 Alicante News The start of a new life for Creative Works talks to GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

2 The start of a new life for Creative Works A new database for orphan works has just been launched by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (). Orphan works include books, films, newspaper articles and other creative material that are protected by copyright, but whose owner cannot be found. There are millions of orphan works in libraries, museums, public broadcasters archives and other public institutions in the EU. the British Library, for example, which holds over 150 million items, estimates that up to 40% of creative works in its collections could be orphans. But without permission from the author or the author s heirs, nobody can digitise or disseminate these works.. This also applies to institutions. cultural The EU Directive on Orphan Works which entered into force at the end of 2012, is designed to solve this problem by setting out common rules for the digitisation and online display of orphan works which had been first published in the EU. Under the Directive, such works which have been identified as orphan after a diligent search on their authorship may be used by public institutions. All orphan works must be included in an EU-wide data base; the creation of which was entrusted to. As a consequence, has been nurturing these orphan works, under the guidance of a copyright specialist. The preparatory phase included consultations with stakeholders to define the data and workflow of the database. At the beginning of the tool was designed and developed by s IT department, and the implementation of the bulk of the data upload process was achieved. In July, stakeholders helped with the database s testing phase and in mid-august the database went live on a restricted basis. The database became fully operative at the end of October and continues to thrive with support from stakeholders, training programmes and communication activities. planned in Two new releases are This single publicly accessible online platform aims to collect information about orphan works which are part of the collections currently held at national level by public libraries, museums, archives, film and audio heritage institutions and public service broadcasting organisations all over Europe. 01 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

3 These cultural bodies that hold works must first conduct a diligent search on the authors of the works and, if such a search is fruitless, they must record the information about the work in the database. Once identified as an orphan in one country, these works are recognised as orphan across the European Union. This means that any cultural organisation having these works in its archives may digitise them and make them available across the EU. Such rules are an exception to copyright, and authors who recognise one of their works in the data base may of course request a change of status and to get back their full rights on the work in question. Digitisation remains a challenge, with only a fraction of Europe s collections digitised so far (around 12% on average for libraries and less than 3% for films). The lack of data on the works is a major obstacle to digitising and making such works available online. 02 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

4 The Orphan Works database has already been broadly welcomed by copyright specialists and cultural institutions across the EU. Dr. Péter Lábody, head of the Copyright Department at the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, believes that the database will be a very useful tool: a transparent and also manageable interface on which the users of orphan works, their right holders and also the competent national authorities can rely on. The database, described as a small, but important, step towards making Europe s cultural heritage digitally available by Benjamin White, Head of Intellectual Property at the British Library, enables cultural institutions to prevent duplication of effort. It will encourage knowledge sharing and dissemination of best practice, [and] will encourage innovation across Europe, while protecting and promoting the interests of creators, he added. For readers who want to know more: The Orphan Works Database can be accessed from the Observatory web site and there s a video available or go directly to OAMITubes If you would like to receive more information about or get involved in the Orphan Works database, please contact: europa.eu 03 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

5 The Interview, Group Counsel - Brand and Marketing, The Body Shop International. What is your background? I m from a small coastal town in Australia called Torquay, which is very big in the world surf scene. In fact two global brands started there Rip Curl and Quiksilver. I went to Melbourne University and did a double degree in Law and Arts. I studied IP as part of that and went on exchange to University College Dublin, in Ireland where I also studied IP. It was the area of law that was closest to the things I love classical music, history and the arts. I took articles with the law firm Allens Arthur Robinson in Melbourne. At the time I was a radio presenter on a Melbourne classical music station, which I did for five or six years during and after university. The firm started me with the competition law guru because he listened to my music station! Then I moved into IP. I was always clear that law was the career I would follow, but the radio presenting was a great outlet for my love of music. Like a lot of Australians, I wanted to come over to Europe for a period of time so I moved to London and joined Baker & McKenzie s IP department. In Australia I had done a range of IP matters, particularly enforcement, and that continued at Baker & McKenzie. Australian law is a child of English law, so it was relatively familiar, and of course there is a lot of harmonisation in IP. But the EU dimension to practice was a very interesting change. What kind of work did you do? Quite a bit of work at Baker & McKenzie was for the company I ve now joined, as well as other brands within the L Oréal Group. For example, I worked on L Oréal v Bellure the lookalike and smellalike fragrances case for about six years, which included a reference to the CJEU. It was a great result for 04 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

6 The Interview the fragrance industry, which experiences a large parasitic trade. It clearly raised issues that weren t fully aired and clarified in the English courts. We got quite a clear judgment from the EU because of the stark nature of this parasitic industry. I also worked on the Special Effects matter, which was very important particularly for trade mark oppositions, and I think was the first time INTA intervened in any European court proceedings. The case could have meant quite a large change in the use of oppositions: the issue was whether you couldn t raise invalidity in court if you had already argued it in an opposition. Fortunately we were successful so that issue didn t bite. How is working in-house different from private practice? I actually acted for The Body Shop a lot while in private practice, so there was already a good relationship and I respected the company. But it is a slightly different way of life. In some ways it s simpler but not for the reasons people always air. It s helpful to see the internals of the business, and match your advice to a specific business and its requirements. As a private practitioner, some of the advice you give can be slightly abstract. Managing the internal relationships and dovetailing what you re doing with the needs of the business is key. And maximising the effect of the budget, as well as having efficient relationships with law firms around the world is critical. But in terms of time and pressure, it s not very different working in-house compared to private practice in my experience. What does your role involve? My title is Group Counsel - Brand and Marketing at The Body Shop International, based in London. I direct the IP function for the company internationally. We are in 70 markets, and we have trade mark registrations in 150 countries or more. In addition to the IP aspects, I provide support on advertising, social media and some commercial matters. In IP there s a busy internal team of three, and there is a large volume of work. We spend a lot of time coordinating a worldwide network of lawyers and non-legal service providers. As well as trade marks, we routinely address copyright and design issues as well as domain names. And we coordinate our activities with the rest of the L Oréal Group. Do you have many different trade marks? Historically The Body Shop has very much relied on its core house marks, with relatively descriptive 05 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

7 The Interview names for products. That may be changing, but the core house marks are the principal marks we protect, even though there are an increasing number of products. We have registrations for the name and logo in most countries. It s a mature business, started in the 1970s, and it took a very different approach to cosmetics. It s very much an activist company, which is good for the recognition of the brand. The challenges often come in new trading markets. Success attracts unwanted attention so it s important to be on the front foot as much as possible with your protection. There are situations where people try to register your rights in advance and you have to take the necessary steps. It comes with being so well known. There s a lot of variety in the law. It means you need to work with your local lawyers very closely. What is the impact of social media? Every year more of the classic IP abuse and illicit trade occurs on social media. We need to monitor and address that as well as other infringing activity online. It s also important to make sure the company is managing the risks in social media, which is not just strictly IP. Employees should be aware of a policy on social media use. Social media managers have to respond quickly and informally so it s important they understand the risks so they can escalate issues if necessary. There is a balance to be struck. We monitor the activity the company is doing, and I think that works well. In the advertising area, bloggers and vloggers are increasingly important in the fashion and cosmetics businesses. Some of them are more important than traditional media and businesses need to work out how to relate to them, and how the regulations apply. Regulators themselves are also thinking about where to put the bar with this activity. One of the questions is: when do you enforce your rights as an IP owner when the use is non- or quasicommercial? And when is it best to do nothing? It s partly about resource but also PR management in handling fan-type activity. It s not new of course but it s more visible and the volume is greater. In fact, the first trade mark file I had in Australia was for a drinks manufacturer and we worked with them to decide when they jumped in to deal with infringing activity and when not to. You can take a broad approach but ultimately you need to look at each individual case. It s one of the fundamental challenges because volume is a factor. 06 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

8 The Interview What about domain names? We have about 300 or so domain names, focused on our core brand in various top-level domains. We ve monitored the new gtlds as they are released, and we ve taken a fairly conservative approach using some defensive registrations and some of the blocking mechanisms available. What do you like about working in IP, and what is most challenging? The best thing about working in IP is the global remit. It s constantly fascinating, not just the differences in law, which mean you are always learning, but also the different languages and cultures and ways of working. Sometimes geopolitics is a big factor in what you do as an IP lawyer. That s the most rewarding thing, but also the most challenging. In the EU we have a sophisticated regime and a high level of protection, but in other parts of the world things are very different. It requires a lot of focus, and that you have a really good team worldwide. We use the Madrid System for international registrations, but not exclusively. We take different views for different countries. If it could expand further, that would be attractive. In some countries where we want to have more direct control of the mark, or if we expect specific issues, we will not use the Madrid System. Are there particular improvements you would like to see in Europe? There are two things to highlight. One is that from the Bellure case came this expanded range of functions of a trade mark, such as investment and advertising, as well as the classic origin function. Going forward, one of the most important things is how they are defined and what weight is given to them. That will be very important to how well protected brands are in the future. The keywords case law that came after has shown that something as counter-intuitive as your direct competitor using your house mark to trigger their advertising shows that the advertising function is not necessarily given weight. In the context of a trade mark directive that offers protection for taking unfair advantage of a trade mark, these functions have to be there. The provision doesn t have an obvious connection to the guaranteeing origin function. So they are there and it s important that the CJEU started to define them. For brand owners, a trade mark is something you invest in and it has an advertising function. That is obvious and needs to be recognised in the law. The other area is counterfeiting. It s really important that counterfeits are seen to be a public issue, not just an issue for the specific brand involved at that time. There is some good progress, but there is still work to be done. Police and Customs are 07 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

9 The Interview working together, and it is critically important that intermediaries take responsibility and take technical steps to address counterfeit activity where they can. There are positive indications, such as the recent High Court decision in Cartier v BskyB where due weight was given to the public interest in stopping counterfeits. And the Observatory generates the kind of data that can be very persuasive when speaking to policy makers in Brussels. What do you expect to be the big trade mark issues in the future? One question will be: how much does the scope of fair use of trade marks expand? This relates to the question about functions. There s a debate about parody and copyright, but in a broader sense there s the keywords example. The law seems to suggest that s a fair use for a competitor to use a brand owner s trade mark to trigger an advertisement. That s an expansion. Whether it s online or elsewhere, the extent to which that continues to expand is a key issue. Another issue, as we ve discussed, is for IP owners: when we have rights should we always take action? Where the activity is non-commercial, there is a responsibility on IP owners to consider how to enforce their rights. We have also discussed counterfeiting which will remain a very big issue. The question is how will the various pieces of the puzzle be brought together, and how do the various players contribute going forward? Finally, for the cosmetics business, clearing and protecting new product names and designs is a core activity. So registry crowding and to what extent that can be avoided is a key problem. Non-use is one issue: there are so many marks that are not used, and the approach to removal varies around the world, even on questions such as who has standing? The public policy argument that marks not being used should not be on the register is quite clear, and we should make removing those marks as simple as possible. It s a worldwide rather than a national or European problem. 08 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

10 Don t forget to keep the Register up to date! Has your company changed name recently? Have you moved? Have you transferred your trade mark, or licenced it? All of these are important changes that affect your mark and should be reflected in the Register, this way you can help keep the Register up to date and maintain its veracity and benefit from its publicity. If you ve changed name or address, correspondence address or contact information, you can update these directly via your User Area. Any changes you make here will apply to all CTM proceedings that are being conducted under the same ID number. Modifying your name and/or address will trigger an entry in the Register (a recordal ) that will be processed by. If you haven t yet signed up to a User Area, you can file the form to change your name or address. All the information you need on the requirements for changing a name or address can be found in the Guidelines Part E, Section 1 Changes in a registration. If instead of a change of name you have actually transferred the ownership of your mark, you will need to submit a request to register a transfer. A total transfer is the change of ownership of a CTM application or registration. A partial transfer is the transfer of some of the goods and/or services related to a CTM application or registration essentially resulting in the original mark being split in two, or more, separate marks that maintain the original filing date. The process is simple and free of charge: there is no need to send documentary evidence of the transfer (e.g. a deed of assignment) when the representative signing the request checks the box Representative for both parties and provided they are listed as the representative appointed by the original owner in our database and are also appointed as the representative of the new owner/beneficiary. In all other cases, the recordal application must be accompanied by a declaration signed by both parties, evidence of the transfer, etc. To record a transfer of ownership with the Office you will need to fill in the Recordal application form which is available in its online and downloadable versions on the forms and filings page. All the information you need on the requirements for recording a transfer of ownership can be found in the Guidelines Part E, Section 3, Chapter 1 Transfer, including a useful explanation on the difference between change of name and transfer. 09 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

11 If you would like to record a licence you have granted for your mark, or that you have acquired for a mark, in the Register you can do this for a small fee of 200. Licences can be total or partial (relating to only some of the goods and services), territorially limited (to a specific part of the European Union), or limited in time (for a specific duration) or even exclusive (for a single licensee). Even sub-licenses can be recorded in the register. Requests to record a licence in the Register can be filed by the licensor or the licensee, or their representatives, using the online or downloadable recordal application forms provided. For full details on the indications and evidence needed, please consult the Guidelines Part E, Section 3, Chapter 2 Licences. Perhaps you are the liquidator of a company involved in insolvency proceedings. Recording such details in the Register is very important vis-à-vis third parties who may have acquired rights in the trade mark (Article 23 CTMR). It also means that the CTM proprietor will lose its right to act and may not perform any actions before the Office such as surrendering, or transferring the mark. Furthermore, if an insolvency is recorded in the register the Office will notify the liquidator when the trade mark is due for renewal. Recording an insolvency judgment in the register is free of charge and requires the completion of the online or downloadable form and for the recordal applicant to submit a copy of the insolvency judgment. The Office strongly recommends that liquidators withdraw, surrender or transfer the CTMs and CTMAs subject to insolvency proceedings prior to the final winding up. The dissolution of a company that is still the owner of assets (such as trade marks) is not normally allowed in the law of the Member States and could lead to the liquidator being found responsible for damages. Full information on recording insolvency and the like proceedings in the Register can be found in the Guidelines Part E, Section 3, Chapter 5 Insolvency proceedings. Keeping the Register up-to-date is also very important when it comes to notifying you that your trade mark is due to expire. Keeping your personal details updated, but also making sure that any rights in rem, or licences are recorded in the Register will mean that the notifications from the Office will reach you, and affected third parties, correctly. 10 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

12 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board This judgment rules on the appeal against the decision of s Third Board of Appeal, R 1512/2010 3, in relation to invalidity proceedings (ICD 4927) for registered Community design No (RCD), as represented in two views below (figs 1 and 2). The RCD, registered and published in 2003, was challenged in invalidity proceedings on the grounds of Article 25(1)(b) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (CDR) for non compliance with the novelty and individual character requirements of Articles 5 and 6 CDR, on the grounds of being excluded from protection as it was a design incorporated in a component part of a complex product that is invisible during normal use, pursuant to Article 4(2) CDR, and on the grounds of being excluded from protection due to the fact that some features of the design were solely dictated by their technical function, pursuant to Article 8(1) CDR. The applicant mainly claimed that the contested RCD relates to an insert in the U form, consisting of six pieces, which plugs into and covers a recess in a skirting board and therefore it is a component part of a complex product, which is only partly visible when assembled. The invisible parts, which are the two protrusions extending from the flat base, are hidden in the recess of the skirting board and they are therefore excluded from protection, pursuant to Article 4(2) CDR. They are also excluded from protection pursuant to Article 8(1) CDR as they are solely dictated by their technical function. The applicant relied on two earlier disclosed designs relating to component parts of skirting boards, as shown below (figs 3 and 4), alleging that they were an obstacle to the novelty and individual character of the RCD. The grounds for invalidity were found to be justified and the invalidity application was upheld. It was ruled that the two parallel protrusions extending from the flat base of the insert relating to the RCD were not solely dictated by their technical function but they were invisible when the product was assembled on the skirting board. The RCD relates to a product which is a component part of a complex product and its only visible part during normal use is the flat surface of the base. In this element the RCD is identical with the earlier disclosed design shown in fig. 3 below and therefore it lacks novelty. The decision was appealed. The Third Board of Appeal upheld the first instance decision, finding that the RCD lacked novelty and individual character compared with the earlier design. The RCD holder appealed to the General Court, claiming inter alia infringement of Article 25(1) (b), namely assessment of the nature, normal use, visibility, novelty and individual character of the 11 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

13 RCD. The holder claimed that the RCD related to a multifunctional product capable of being used in a number of ways and that its use could not be restricted only to use as a component part of a complex product. The RCD could be used to cover a recess in a skirting board, as shown below (fig. 5), and incorporated in a floor or wall, in which case neither a wall nor a floor could be regarded as a product. If this is not the only use of the product relating to the contested Community design, Article 3(c) CDR should not be applied. The holder further submitted that, even if the RCD were considered to be incorporated in a component part of a complex product, it would remain fully visible when, as demonstrated, it was made from a transparent material, covered the recess of the skirting board, was removed when cables were installed in the skirting board, or when the ends of the skirting board were not covered. Furthermore, according to the holder and contrary to the Third Board of Appeal s finding, the product relating to the RCD cannot be used with a skirting board such as the one depicted in the Döllken catalogue; it cannot be attached to a wall and covered by a skirting board clipped into it because the product relating to the RCD does not fit the corresponding parts of such a skirting board. As regards the earlier designs, the holder claimed that the front views were not shown sufficiently to be able to assess the novelty and individual character of the RCD. The General Court upheld the holder s plea. In essence, it found that: As recital 12 CDR states that protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a product or to any features of such a part which are not visible when the part is mounted, it is not necessary to determine in the present case whether the recesses that the contested design is supposed to cover are located in a product in the strict sense of Article 3 of Regulation No 6/2002 but rather to determine which features are visible during normal use. Applying this argument on the use of the product relating to the RCD clipped into skirting boards such as those demonstrated by the state of the art (figs 3 and 4 below), the Court concludes that it would be impossible to protect the use of the design as an attachment to the back part of a skirting board because in that case the component part related to the RCD remains invisible. The contested design constitutes a component part of a complex product where it is intended to cover a recess in a skirting board and, incidentally, a recess in a wall or floor. While maintaining that GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October 12

14 the contested design is a multifunctional product, the Court contends that these are the only ways in which the product relating to the RCD is used that were truly demonstrated by the holder. Regarding the visibility of the design when used in the ways demonstrated, according the Court the Third Board of Appeal was not wrong in concluding that the only visible feature of the RCD during normal use is the front surface. The holder did not prove in the submitted evidence that, when the product relating to the RCD is made of a transparent material and inserted to cover a recess in a skirting board or wall, the protrusions of the RCD are visible. Moreover, the registration does not claim any particular material and therefore the design could be applied to products made of various materials, not just transparent ones. The Board of Appeal was also right to conclude that the representation of the design displayed in the Döllken catalogue was clear enough for the purpose of assessing the novelty and individual character of the RCD because a perspective view of neither the RCD nor the earlier design is required as long as that graphic representation allows the shape and the features of the design to be identified, which was met in the present case. The Court mainly ruled that the earlier design, which constituted the obstacle to the novelty and individual character of the RCD in the appealed decision, is not visible during normal use of the complex product of which it is a part as it is intended to be attached to the back of a skirting board. Therefore, in the same way as found above in relation to the visibility of the RCD, it has to be disregarded. Since a design constituting a component part of a complex product which is not visible during normal use of that complex product cannot be protected under Article 4(2)(a) CDR, the novelty and individual character of a Community design cannot be assessed by comparing that design with an earlier design which, as a component part of a complex product, is not visible during normal use of that product. The Third Board of Appeal therefore erred in identifying correctly the visible elements of the prior design. To see the CJEU judgment click here GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October 13

16 Fig. 4 Example of use of the product related to the contested RCD Fig. 5 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October 15

17 Monthly statistical highlights October* 2013 applications received applications published s registered (certificates issued) s received s published * Statistical data for the month in course is not definitive. Figures may vary slightly thereafter CTM received CTM published CTM registered RCD received RCD published GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

18 Developed under the framework of ohim s Cooperation Fund, the Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office (OEPM) has implemented e-filing for designs. e-filing for designs is one of the components of the Software Package project the largest single project in the 50 million Cooperation Fund. It offers a simple and intuitive online registration process, making the design application process easier and quicker for users. The implementation of the new system is the result of the joint work and collaboration between and OEPM experts. The new OEPM e-filing system is available at https:// tramites3.oepm.es/sp-ui-dsefiling Greece implements trade marks e-filing The Trademark Office of Greece has implemented e-filing for trade marks, a tool developed under the framework of the Cooperation Fund in collaboration with. The new e-filing system represents a big step forward in the way trade marks are processed and registered. It offers an online registration process that makes trade mark applications easier, quicker and more accessible, benefiting all users of the Greek trade mark system. A key member of the European Trade Marks and Design Network, Greece has been actively involved in the Cooperation Fund since the very beginning, contributing to the development and implementation of the majority of the tools developed within the Programme. Slovenia implements e-filing for trade marks and designs The Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has implemented e-filing for trade marks and designs. The e-filing tool is part of the Software Package developed under the framework of the Cooperation Fund. The implementation of the new system is the result of the joint work and collaboration between and SIPO experts. The new SIPO e-filing system is available at 17 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

19 As of 10, the Department of the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver (DRCOR) which is part of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of the Republic of Cyprus has made its design data available to the DesignView search tool. The integration of DRCOR is a concrete result of the Cooperation Fund Programme managed by in collaboration with its European partners. This last extension brings the total number of offices participating in DesignView to 18. Besides Cyprus these are: Bulgaria, Benelux, Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia and. With the addition of more than 300 Cypriot designs, DesignView now provides information and access to almost 2,5 million designs in total. Since the introduction of DesignView in 2012, the tool has served more than searches from 133 different countries, with users from Germany, Spain, the UK and France among the most frequent visitors. As of 24, the Icelandic Patent Office (ELS - IPO) has made its trade mark data available to the TMview search tool. This last extension brings the total number of offices participating in TMview to 37 and with the addition of more than 47,000 Icelandic trade marks, TMview now provides information and access to almost 24,6 million trade marks in total. Since the introduction of TMview on 13 April 2010, the tool has served more than 10 million searches from 214 different countries, with users from Spain, Germany and Italy among the most frequent visitors. 18 GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

20 As of 17, the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH) started managing its national and international trade marks with the new Back Office system developed under the framework of the Cooperation Fund. PRH is the first Office with a full go-live with the tool, which is the largest project of the Cooperation Fund. The implementation is the result of more than two years of team work among the two pilot Offices (Finnish and Polish IP Offices) and. The Polish IP Office is very close to the full deployment of the system. The Back Office system supports the management of trade marks and designs lifecycle by IP Offices, including the following procedures: Registration Opposition/Cancellation/Invalidity Recordals Appeals International Registration International Application (trade marks only) Apart from the two pilot offices, 10 more European IP Offices have expressed their intention to implement Back Office during GC judgment of 03/10/, T 39/1, Skirting board October

Consultation on the future of European Insolvency Law The Commission has put the revision of the Insolvency Regulation in its Work Programme for 2012. The revision is one of the measures in the field of

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2014, Vol. 9, No. 3 ARTICLE 225 Repeated filings of a European Community trade mark Karin Stumpf* The issue Registered trade marks must be used within five

Page 1 of 7 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 9 November 2005 (*) (Community

Community Trade Mark Application timeline Community Trade Marks, which cover the entire EU, are administered by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). The timeline below gives approximate

European IPR Helpdesk Fact Sheet Intellectual Property considerations for business websites The European IPR Helpdesk is managed by the European Commission s Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized

July 2012 JONES DAY COMMENTARY The Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in IP TRANSLATOR : More Questions than Answers On June 19, 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU

TRADEMARKS THE COMMUNITY TRADEMARK. Questions and anwsers WHY A EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TRADEMARK? The 12 European States bound by the Treaty of Rome which instituted the European Economic Community (now called

A clean and open Internet: Public consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries Questions marked with an asterisk * require an answer to be given.

Brussels, 28 February 2013 Brand owner life before and after IP Translator Alicante, 21 February 2013 Reported by Ewa Grabiak, ECTA Legal Coordinator, PL At the occasion of the annual ECTA-OHIM meeting,

ID REGISTER: Telef05162 Telefónica response to the consultation on the implementation of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive Telefónica welcomes the opportunity to comment on the findings

European IPR Helpdesk Fact Sheet Intellectual Property considerations for business websites July 2015 1 1. What elements of your website can be protected by intellectual property law?... 2 2. How to protect

Implementing Regulations under the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) * The Executive Board of the Benelux Trademark Office and the Executive Board of the Benelux Designs

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 May 2009 (*) (Appeal Community trade mark Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark WATERFORD Refusal to register

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.9.2014 COM(2014) 592 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation in the period from 4 December 2011 until 31 December

European judicial training 2014 Justice Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone

Summary Report Question Q192 Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights At its Executive Committee Meeting held in Berlin in September 2005, the AIPPI approved a comparative

Aniko GYENGE: The Hungarian model of licensing orphan works (Presentation at the ES Presidency conference on Digitisation of cultural material. Digital libraries and copyright 14 March 2010, Madrid) We

Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System presented by Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Munich 15.02.2011 I PART I INTRODUCTION 1 A. Definition

Questionnaires on introducing the European Professional Card for nurses, doctors, pharmacists, physiotherapists, engineers, mountain guides and estate agents(to competent authorities and other interested

Making a cross border claim in the EU serving the community through the administration of justice Using the European Order for Payment procedure or the European Small Claims procedure Version: 2.0 Date

Introduction to the European Patent Office and the European patent system Michaël De Smet European Patent Office 28-09-202 Contents The European Patent Convention The European Patent Office The European

PRESS DOSSIER INDEX PRESS DOSSIER...1 INDEX...2 ERASMUS FOR YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS : A NEW EXCHANGE PROGRAMME...3 WHO CAN PARTICIPATE?...5 WHAT BENEFITS AND FOR WHOM?...6 HOW DOES IT WORK? STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION...7

Appendix A - IPC regulations governing the procedures for dealing with complaints regarding alleged breaches of the IPC Code of Ethics June 2009 International Paralympic Committee Adenauerallee 212-214

SPAIN Written by Pedro Alemán Laín and Javier Martinez Bavière, Pedro Alemán Abogados Besides the difficult times that the music, film and television industry have been undergoing, we have seen clear signs

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA The European Community, (hereinafter referred to as the Community

A guide to applying for your trade mark overseas Copyright All content in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, with the exception of:

ON-LINE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE EUROPEAN JOINT MASTERS IN MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY (ME3) https://me32014-2016.mines-nantes.fr/ STEP-BY-STEP GUIDELINES Last update: November

Intellectual Property Protection for Websites By Donika Ilieva, IP and ICT lawyer Nowadays companies cannot afford to ignore the internet, which provides a global market where they can place their products

Registered Community Design International Symposium, Protection on Industrial Designs, Santiago, Chile 16-17 November 2011 Registered Community Design RCD began on 1 st of April 2003. Exclusive right to

CULTURAL AND CREATIVE SECTORS GUARANTEE FACILITY OPEN CALL FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST TO SELECT FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES UNDER THE CULTURAL AND CREATIVE SECTORS GUARANTEE FACILITY (Published on 18th July

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL TOURISM ADMINISTRATION OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ON VISA AND RELATED ISSUES CONCERNING TOURIST GROUPS FROM THE PEOPLE

Intellectual Property Rights In India Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Intellectual property rights in India 3 What are intellectual property rights? 3 International

Eurobarometer INNOBAROMETER 2015 - THE INNOVATION TRENDS AT EU ENTERPRISES REPORT Fieldwork: February 2015 Publication: September 2015 This survey has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General

BY: John Holden, Research Assistant EDITED BY: Ariana Monti, International Trade Specialist Summary This document provides a general overview of the issues surrounding the sale of software to countries

Parasitic copying is unfair play Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) has developed this document following the European Commission s call for comments on its retail market monitoring report, Towards more efficient

Proposed Amendments to the Trade-marks Regulations - Update on Progress Introduction This document discusses proposed amendments to the Trade-marks Regulations under the authority of the Trade-marks Act.

VADEMECUM TO THE EUROPEAN UNION TRADE MARKS BULLETIN V.12 (23.03.2016) VADEMECUM Introduction Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part F Part M - EUTM applications - EUTM registrations - Later entries in

Clearer rules for international couples frequently asked questions Why does the EU need to act to help international couples? There are around 122 million marriages in the EU, of which around 16 million

The coordination of healthcare in Europe Rights of insured persons and their family members under Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 Social Europe European Commission The coordination of

1/6 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 5 December 2002 (1) (Community trade

Case Id: 70a3a384-700e-4265-bd45-73158285db75 Date: 15/04/2016 11:52:10 Public consultation on the evaluation and modernisation of the legal framework for the enforcement of intellectual property rights:

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT DESIGNS SERVICE DECISION OF THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 06/11/2013 IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF

Intellectual Property Protection Helpsheet When running a business you need to consider protecting your intellectual property which could be anything from your logo to inventions, products and designs.

- Assessment of the application by Member States of European Union VAT provisions with particular relevance to the Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) - BACKGROUND The information available on this website relates

The European patent system is changing! What does it mean for you? Jeremy Philpott European Patent Office The next 20 minutes Patents in Europe: The current system The unitary patent The Unified Patent

.ME Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") (As approved by domen on November 13, 2015) Administrative proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute

Rules of Procedure DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, Having regard to Regulation (EC)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON.EU DOMAIN NAME Introduction... 2 1) What are the goals underlying the creation of the Top Level Domain (TLD).eu?... 2 2) Who can act as an.eu TLD Registry?... 2 3) Has the Registry

Flash Eurobarometer THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SUPPORT IN THE COMMERCIALISATION OF INNOVATIONS REPORT Fieldwork: January February 2014 Publication: May 2014 This survey has been requested by the European Commission,

18 th draft of 1 st July 2015 Rules of Procedure ( Rules ) of the Unified Patent Court Preliminary set of provisions for the Status 1. First draft dated 29 May 2009 discussed in expert meetings on 5 June

Proposals to streamline IP processes and support small business SUBMISSION by the OFFICE OF THE AUSTRALIAN SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSIONER April 2015 This is a submission by the Office of the Australian Small

An Enhanced European Patent System The Select Committee The Preparatory Committee An Enhanced European Patent System In December 2012 the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament agreed

AGREEMENT RENEWING THE AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA CE/IN/en 1 CE/IN/en 2 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, hereinafter

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.9.2014 C(2014) 6767 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Updating of data used to calculate lump sum and penalty payments to be proposed by the Commission to the Court

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT 21 December 2012 (Intervention Representation by a lawyer - Interest in the result of case) In Case E-7/12, Schenker North AB, established in Gothenburg (Sweden), Schenker Privpak

Summary of Data Protection Requirements When transferring Data Outside the UK End Users 14 May 2010 Background to transfers of the Data outside the UK Data can be transferred in a couple of ways in relation

Unofficial translation Disclaimer 1 Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (ROSPATENT), 2011 CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Passed by the State Duma on November 24, 2006

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 14.3.2005 COM(2005) 82 final GREEN PAPER on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters (presented by the Commission) {SEC(2005) 331} EN EN GREEN

United Kingdom signs up to the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention: What Family Lawyers Need to Know David Truex Barrister and Solicitor (Australia) Solicitor (England and Wales) Taylor Hampton Solicitors